> Marco van de Voort wrote: > >> What new syntax are you referring to ? You mean the 'absolute' ? > >> I don't think so... > > > > Depends on implementation. Do you really implement absolute as with same > > memoryspace here too, or only allow type upgrading (which is the major > > reason for such feature)? > > Changing type to something which is not a descendant (and thus > incompatible) seems useless and always dangerous to me, so should be > forbidden if possible.
I also considered it that way. But maybe the "absolute" keyword is then a bit badly chosen, since it implies memory overlaying, no questions asked. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
